Sitting of 2 April 1819

BOROUGH OF ILCHESTER.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he held in his hand, a petition to which he begged leave to call the attention of the House. It was signed by the rector, the church-wardens, by the overseers of the poor, and a number of other respectable inhabitants of Ilchester. The series of grievances detailed in the petition were, he believed, founded in fact. Ilchester, as was well known, returned two members to parliament. It was patronized, and, if he might say so, it was the property of a particular individual (sir William Manners.) After the last election, a number of houses in the town were pulled down by the proprietor. The consequence of this was, upwards of a hundred families were forced out of the houses which they occupied, and placed in a species of poor-house, hired by the town from the same individual. About eighteen or twenty of those who were so turned out, were paupers, the rest were persons who earned their livelihood. But notice was given by that individual, that, in consequence of the continued political dissentions which prevailed in the town, he was resolved to take from them the house in question, so that those poor persons whose houses had been pulled down, were deprived of this last resource of a poor-house. They were accordingly all turned out: 163 men, women, and children, from one month old, to upwards of 80 years, were all turned out into the street, without knowing of a place to shelter themselves at a most inclement season of the year [Hear, hear!]. Some of them were able to get together some straw in the town-hall. Some of them betook themselves to the fields. Among the people so turned out, there were several pregnant women, and one woman daily expected the pangs of child-birth. It was stated that a mode, which in other cases had sometimes been resorted to, was here adopted for driving the people out of their houses. The upper stories were filled with dung, which, by oozing through the floors, rendered the lower parts uninhabitable. With respect to the petition, it was quite clear that this was
[1354
a very great grievance. As to these 163 individuals, whether they had any legal remedy or not, he knew not. The petitioners, however, naturally looked to the House for protection. His intention at one time was to move that it be referred to the committee on the poor-laws. Indeed, he hardly well knew what course to pursue. He trusted the House would not refuse that inquiry into the case, which the petitioners wished for.
Mr. Merestsaid, he hoped the House would consider the delicate situation in which he stood as member for Ilchester. As member for that borough, it was his duty to present any petition from his constituents; but as the individual alluded to, had questioned his election for the borough, he felt a delicacy in presenting a petition reflecting on his conduct, and had therefore declined to present the petition. At the same time, he could bear testimony not only to the great respectability of the petitioners, but to the truth of every allegation contained in the petition. If cruelties, like those complained of, were tolerated in this country, he knew not what acts might not be committed.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he knew not what the House could do in this case. It was a case on which the House could not enter. The charges in the petition highly affected the moral character of the individual against whom they were made. Yet still there was nothing in them illegal; for a man could do what he pleased with his own property. If the House could not afford relief in such cases, he did not see how they could receive any petition; for if they received it, he knew not where they were to stop. Supposing any great proprietor in this metropolis, lord Grosvenor or the duke of Bedford, for instance, who had a number of tenants from year to year, gave notice to all these tenants to remove, as they preferred to have large streets—this measure might be extremely oppressive to a number of individuals; but still he did not see how the House could afford redress.
Mr. Dickinson, said he happened a few days ago to see some gentlemen from the neighbourhood of Ilchester, who confirmed to him the reports of what had taken place there. He could hardly believe at first in the possibility. It was, however, but justice to say, that before the severe process was resorted to, the individuals forced out of their houses had had regular

1355
notice to quit them. When the people were turned out, the neighbouring magistrates did all that they could do on the occasion. They ordered each man and woman to receive 1s. and to have their lodging paid. But the town of Ilchester was so situated, unfortunately, that no lodging could he found for them. They were therefore obliged to betake themselves to the neighbouring villages.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that whatever powers parliament might possess, they were in no degree applicable to the case in question. As the hon. gentleman had not stated a ground for the interference of the House, and as there could be no expectation of any remedy from the House, he suggested the propriety of withdrawing the petition. The case was one which excited a strong degree of commiseration for the sufferers; but the House as a body, could not act on a principle of humanity alone.
Sir J. Newportthought that ordering this petition to be printed, and entering the proceeding on the journals would be a species of exposure and publicity which might produce a salutary effect on the individual concerned.
Mr. Bennetthen withdrew the petition.

PETITION OF GENERAL GOURGAUD COMPLAINING OF HIS ARREST UNDER THE ALIEN ACT.
Mr. Lambtonsaid, in rising to present the petition of which he had given notice, from general Gourgaud, he begged leave to state, that he was personally unacquainted with that individual. He presented it in compliance with the request of a distinguished foreigner who resided in this country, and who was a friend of general Gourgaud. He was discharging a duty incumbent on every member of parliament, in now presenting this petition to the House, relating as it did to the execution of the Alien act of last year—an act which still remained on the statute book, a shameful memorial of their departure from the old English principles, which so long governed the proceedings of this country towards foreigners. He should have felt some distrust in presenting a petition of this nature to the last parliament, but he was encouraged to present it to the present House of Commons, from the feeling which he had witnessed in it. He trusted at least that the House would consent to a deliberate investigation of the subject matter of any petition, complaining of illegal and
[1356
unwarrantable oppression on the part of government, whether that oppression was exercised towards a foreigner or a native of our own country. General Gourgaud complained in this petition of a gross violation of a provision in the Alien act, allowing the individuals ordered in virtue of that act to leave the country, a power of appealing to the privy council; and he also complained of a proceeding on the part of government equally unjustifiable, namely, the seizure of his papers and other effects, a proceeding equally unauthorized by the Alien act. The petition also accused the persons who acted under the secretary of state for the home department, of most unjustifiable cruelties and personal barbarities inflicted by them on general Gourgaud, and which, if true, reflected the greatest disgrace on that officer, who was entrusted with the execution of the warrant. He fervently hoped that these barbarities might be disproved to the honour of the country, and that it might not be said that the government, added insult to oppression, and wantonly outraged the feelings of a defenceless foreigner in their power.—He would proceed as shortly as possible, to detail to the House the statement of the case of general Gourgaud. He prayed to be allowed an opportunity of substantiating by proof the statements contained in his petition. The petition stated, that on the 14th of November, 1818, seven or eight men, armed with pistols and bludgeons, rushed into his room when he was ill in bed. Mr. Benjamin Capper, of the alien office, who was at the head of them, ordered him to get up, telling him that lord Sidmouth wanted to see him. General Gourgaud signified his acquiescence, but wished them to retire while he dressed himself. The men then proceeded to open the drawers of his bureau, on which the general wished to know the authority for this step. Mr. B. Capper then showed him the warrant of lord Sidmouth. General G. said, that though this warrant required him to leave the kingdom, it did not authorize them to seize his papers and effects. He begged them to consider his situation; that he was unwell, alone, and without a servant—and he wished a few hours merely to enable him to arrange his affairs, and to see a friend to deliver over his property to his care. Mr. Capper replied, that if he did not rise instantly he would take, him naked as he was, and as a proof of this immediately took hold of. the bed-

1357
clothes with much force. General G. protested against this act of violence, and asked to be carried before the privy council or lord Sidmouth, and he proceeded to dress himself. Some conversation then took place as to what part of the continent the petitioner was to be carried to. On his going into the sitting room he was surrounded by these men who held pistols to his breast. To prove to them that he had no intention of resisting, he pointed out to them another pair of pistols in a closet, which they took. They had before seized his portfolio, and it was with great exertion that he succeeded in putting some papers in the portfolio, which he locked in spite of Mr. Capper who wished that it should be open. Gen. G. declared his willingness to submit them to lord Sidmouth's examination, but refused to leave them open to the examination, or liable to have others Substituted to them, by the men by whom he was surrounded, and wished therefore to seal them up. This so enraged Mr. Capper, that he endeavoured to snatch the sealing wax out of the general's hands, but he was not able to do so till he had succeeded in sealing the cover. Two of the men then seized him by his throat, while the rest struck him on the head with their bludgeons, and took possession of all his effects. General G. then cried out 'murder,' an apprehension which their conduct might naturally lead him to entertain. They dragged him out of the room, striking him with their sticks, and the butt end of their pistols, attempted to force a handkerchief into his mouth, and hurried him into a carriage at the door. General G. demanded to be taken before a magistrate, that he might have justice, but in vain. Mr. Capper told the crowd assembled round the carriage, that he was a madman, a criminal, guilty of high treason, and even threatened to fire on any one who dared to interfere. In forcing him into the carriage, they nearly broke his leg, by violently closing the door upon it whilst hanging out. The pain was so great that he fell exhausted on the floor of the carriage, upon which Mr. Capper and his men jumped in, kept general G. down under their feet, and drove off at full gallop. They then conducted the general to Mr. Capper's house, near Westminster bridge. He stated the means adopted by Mr. Capper to induce him to give them an order to take possession of his property that had been left in his lodgings, but he refused, saying, if Mr.
[1358
Capper and his men had any right, in the first instance, to act as they did, by the same right they could return to take the rest. He (Mr. Lambton) could not, from his own knowledge, speak to the truth of the petition. There were some circumstances, which, if true, certainly formed a strong ground of charge against the government. He alluded more particularly to the refusal to consent to the demand to be carried before the privy council, and to the seizure of the papers and other property of general Gourgaud. To corroborate the truth of the charge that the general demanded to be taken before the privy council, he could refer to the testimony of a friend, who would state a conversation which he had with the general on this subject before the arrest, and he was ready to produce that gentleman at the bar of the House if requisite. With respect to this point general G. had made an affidavit, which he would read to the House:—
"I, the undersigned, make oath to God, and declare upon my honour, that when Mr. Capper, of the alien office, showed me on the 14th of November 1818, the order issued by lord Sidmouth, in virtue of the powers granted to his Britannic Majesty's ministers by the Alien bill, commanding me to leave the kingdom of Great Britain, I urgently demanded to be taken before the privy council, as the said Alien bill gave me the right to do, and that such my demand was refused; that I declared to the said Mr. Capper, that, by such refusal, he himself violated the Alien bill; that I begged him to take me at least before lord Sidmouth, or before some magistrate in London who could appreciate the justice of my demand; and that finally, all my entreaties being fruitless, I loudly protested against the violation of the British laws. I moreover declare, that at the time of the publication in the newspapers in October last, of the letter which I had sent to the empress Marie Louise, in August, having reason to fear that the Alien bill would be enforced against me with its utmost rigour, I did at that time, say October, consult several persons well versed in the English laws upon the subject, and that I knew perfectly well the resource which the Alien bill afforded to all foreigners expelled the kingdom, to be taken before the privy council, and that it was with the perfect conviction that I had that right, that I constantly demanded of Mr. Capper to be taken before the privy

1359
council. Done at Hamburgh (signed) Le Gen. Gourgaud."
In this petition general Gourgaud described his journey to Harwich, and the insolent and contemptuous treatment he met with from the agents of lord Sidmouth. At eleven o'clock at night they arrived at Harwich. General G. being in a high fever, requested to retire to bed, but even this was denied him till his guards had supped. On the next day, the 15th Mr. Capper brought a magistrate. On his arrival general G. began the history of his wrongs, when the magistrate told him he had nothing to do but to address himself to Mr. Capper, who was the representative of lord Sidmouth. That person also refused to take charge of a letter from general G. to lord Sidmouth, and referred him again to Mr. Capper. On the same day Mr. Capper departed for London, and offered to bring general G. back some clothes, on receiving his authority to demand them. This authority he refused to give, but sent an open letter to his friend, count Forbin Janson, begging him to take possession of, and to seal up all his goods. On the 18th, Mr. Capper returned with the clothes, and an open letter from count Forbin Janson, stating that he had not been suffered to read the one general G. had sent to him. Mr. Capper then stated, that lord Sidmouth was in possession of his papers and effects, which completely prevented the possibility of his identifying himself on the continent. General G. again asked for lord Sidmouth's order and a certificate that his property was in his lordship's possession, but could obtain neither the one nor the other.—He should now proceed to read a letter addressed by general G. from Harwich to lord Sidmouth, complaining of the treatment he had experienced.
"Harwich, Nov. 18, 1818.—My lord; When I shall no longer be at the disposition of those persons who call themselves your lordship's agents, I shall do myself the honour of acquainting you with the manner in which I was treated by them, when an the 14th November instant, they took possession of my papers, effects, &c. in obedience, as they said, to the orders and instructions of your lordship, and carried me off from my lodgings, No. 7. Compton-street, to conduct me here. Now that I am on the point of embarking for Cuxhaven, I take the liberty of writing to you, merely to beg that you will allow
║
[1360
the effects which have been taken from me to be restored to me; among which is my portfolio, which contains articles on which I set the highest value. It was taken from me by Mr. Capper of the Alien office, when I attempted to seal it up. This gentleman informs me, that it is at this time in your possession. Your, lordship must have the goodness to remember, that I did not come to England by stealth; that during my stay in this country I have not committed any infringement on the laws, and you will pardon me for not being able, to imagine the reason for my removal from a country where I have received hospitality. Am I accused? Am I deemed guilty? I beseech your lordship to allow me to appear before the courts of justice. To seize my papers, manuscripts and effects—my whole fortune, and to send me out of the kingdom, appears to me such an injustice, that I dare address myself to your lordship for reparation. I wrote, with the consent, and in the presence of Mr. Capper, to one of my friends in London, the count de Forbin Janson, to beg him to give me a regular account of the state of my trunks and effects left in my lodgings, to seal them up, and to deposit them in a place of safety. I hear that this part of my letter to my friend, the count, has not been communicated to him, and that he was not even allowed to see my letter, that he only knew what they were pleased to tell him, which makes me very apprehensive for the safety of my effects. Capper would not undertake to deliver the letter in question, till after having refused to take charge of another, wherein I recommended my property to men connected with the law. What am I to think of such conduct? I declare that I have never had (as many newspapers have said) the least idea of resisting the orders of your lordship for my quitting the kingdom; supposing even that I had the right, it would have been a great folly on my part; I was alone, undressed, without arms, and seized by seven or eight vigorous men. I did not call for help, till my intention of sealing my papers, having deranged Capper's plans, he seized my portfolio, while several of his companions seized me by the throat, and others endeavoured to stun me by beating me on the head. I continually asked to be carried either before your lordship, before a magistrate, or before the privy council, but I only received the most shameful

1361
treatment in return. If your lordship thinks that the power granted to ministers by the Alien bill does not extend to the confiscation of the property of an unfortunate foreigner, who is driven out of the country, I have the honour to entreat you to allow me to return to London, to claim from the courts of justice the effects, papers, and manuscripts which have been taken from me, and in which, as I have already said, my whole fortune consists; or to allow me to be brought to trial if I am accused. I have the honour to be, &c. General Gourgaud."
The answer to this letter was dated, "Whitehall, 24th November, 1818.— Sir; I am directed by lord Sidmouth to acknowledge the receipt of a letter, addressed by you to his lordship from Harwich, on the 18th instant, and to acquaint you, that his lordship has given directions that your portfolio, and all the other articles alluded to in your letter, shall be transmitted to Mr. Dutton, post-office agent in Cuxhaven, for the purpose of being delivered to you. I am, &c.
"H. HOBHOUSE."
To this general Gourgaud replied to lord Sidmouth as follows:—"Hamburgh, 7th Dec. 1818.—My lord; I hoped that as your lordship was aware what little foundation there was in the stories that were abroad on my account, you would have granted me the request which I asked in my letter of the 18th instant, and allowed me to return to London to settle my affairs. On account of your lordship's silence, I fear that your numerous occupations have made you forget my request. I have the honour of reminding you of it. I add to this, the detailed narrative of all that I suffered from the individuals charged with the execution of your lordship's order. The desire that I had until this day, of remitting to your lordship myself, had retarded my sending. You will therein see, that after having refused to conduct me before the privy council, or before a magistrate, not allowing me to give the objects I had left in my lodgings to the care of a friend, having taken away my portfolio and my papers, and pillaged my effects; after having used me with the most shameful treatment, refused to let me go into the Netherlands or to Holland, and having kept me four days under such close confinement that I could see no one, these individuals cast me on shore at Cuxhaven, without allowing me to have a copy of the order by which I was sent out
[1362
of the country, and without leaving me a single paper to prove who I was; thus exposing me to be arrested for a vagabond. Certain am I, my lord, that this conduct of your agents was contrary to your instructions, I demand justice for it from your lordship. I have already had the honour of communicating to your lordship, that I had written by Mr. Capper to my friend, the count de Forbin Janson, to beg him to take an inventory of the effects left in my lodgings, and to put them in a place of safety; but that this letter had never been remitted to him. I have again written to this friend to trouble him with the same commission. Not having received any answer, I can only presume that this letter, like the first, has been intercepted. I am, therefore, without any knowledge of what has become of all the things left in my lodgings. I am still more uneasy, as Mr. Capper informed me that his men returned there after my departure. Mr. Hobhouse wrote to me some days ago, by your lordship's order, to acknowledge the receipt of my letter from Harwich; and to inform me that the articles therein asked for were sent off. I have only received as yet, 1. my portfolio; 2. my pistols; 3. a bundle of business letters and visiting cards. These objects being not nearly all that were seized by your agents, I should be much obliged if your lordship would let me know what is become of the rest, and to send them to me. My portfolio, which I had taken care to lock at the time of my arrest, having been sent to me open, I could not receive it but in the presence of Mr. Bartels, senior, minister of police of this town, in order that he might ascertain the fact of its being open when delivered to me. I will not take the liberty to discuss whether that of visiting my papers when I am turned out of the country, is a regular measure or not; for if innocent, why punish me? if guilty, why spare me? Without looking for the reasons of this visit, the fact is, that it ought to convince you that I am not a conspirator; my correspondence with several sovereigns had but one object, that of letting them know the true situation of the unhappy Napoleon, to try to obtain, by their intercession, some relief for his evils. Your lordship may have remarked in those letters, that it is the heart alone which speaks, and that there is not one word which has an affinity to politics. In all the discussions of the English ministers on the treat-

1363
ment of their illustrious and unfortunate prisoner at St. Helena, they said that they did not omit any means of mitigating the rigour of his fate; how can they then find me guilty who am a Frenchman, honoured by his kindness in his prosperity, who fought for 15 years under him? in fine, me who am his aide-de-camp, who have partaken of his captivity for three years? Can these ministers find me guilty of using all my efforts to diminish his misfortunes? No, my lord, I appeal to your conscience. Well! it is for this that they have driven me out of England; that they have sent me to the continent to be put under the inspection of the police, and to remain there without protection; at least, such is the only motive that I can guess.' —The rest of the letter alludes to the idea, that the general was sent out of England on account of his publication respecting Waterloo. It concludes by again begging permission to return to England, get together his effects, and settle matters of business,—The next letter was from Mr. Hobhouse, in reply; which was received by general Gourgaud, after an interval of two months:—
"Whitehall, Jan. 12, 1819—Sir; I am directed by lord Sidmouth to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th ult. in which you complain of some articles of your property not having been delivered to you, and that your portfolio had been returned to you open; and in reply, I am to refer you to my letter of the 24th November last, in which you were informed, 'that his lordship had given directions that your portfolio, and all the other articles alluded to in your letter of the 18th of November, should be transmitted to Mr. Dutton, post-office agent, at Cuxhaven, for the purpose of being delivered to you;' and I am to acquaint you, that as you have not mentioned any of the articles which you allege to be withheld from you, his lordship has been unable to institute any inquiry respecting them. Lord Sidmouth has, however, caused inquiry to be made as to your other complaint of your portfolio's having been delivered to you open, and his lordship finds it utterly destitute of foundation. I am, Sir, &c.
"H. HOBHOUSE."
General Gourgaud sent the following reply to Lord Sidmouth.
"Hamburgh, 6th February, 1819.—My Lord; I have just received a letter from Mr. Hobhouse, dated the 12th of January
[1364
who informs me that he writes by your lordship's orders, in reply to the letter I had the honour to address to your lordship on the 7th of December last. Your lordship may perhaps recur to that letter of the 7th of December, and also to that from Harwich of the 18th November, and your lordship will perceive, that after having represented the violation of the English laws committed in my case, and the ill-treatment and insults heaped upon me by your agents, I asked for justice, and requested to be allowed to proceed to London to collect together what I had left there, and to settle my concerns of importance; and as Mr. Hobhouse preserves an absolute silence upon these points, I again repeat them to your lordship, and beg to be favoured with your lordship's answer. Your lordship tells me that you could not cause any inquiry to be made after the articles which were taken from me by your people, because I did not enumerate them; but, my lord, as all my things remained after I was carried from London, at the entire disposal of your lordship's agents, how could I make out a perfect list of what they carried off, until I knew what they had left. In my apartment I had four trunks locked; one of them has been sent me to Harwich; how is it possible for me to say what remained in the other three, after they had been subjected to the search your lordship's inquisitors made subsequently to my departure. Upon this subject I shall take leave to repeat what I have had the honour to represent to your lordship in my previous letters, viz. that after they refused to take me, when arrested, before the privy council, I applied for leave to commit to some person what I was forced to leave behind in London, which application was likewise refused; that on the then ensuing day, I wrote through Mr. Capper, to one of my friends to get the state in which my three trunks were which he would find in my apartment, regularly verified and proved, which part of my letter they would not allow him to attend to, nor to that in which I claimed my portfolio. My wish was for every thing to be put in order, their object was, that disorder should prevail. Why did they act in this way unless that they might be able to pry into, and take with impunity, whatever they thought proper from my house? In feeling an anxious interest for the, to me valuable, contents of my trunks, in urgently soliciting permission to return

1365
to London to settle ray affairs, I should have unquestionably appeared ridiculous had I implored your lordship to let such trifling articles as the following be returned to me, viz. a few cambric handkerchiefs, a few silk stockings, some books, a silver spoon, and umbrella, a cane, &c. &c. I know well, that if once exposed to the misfortune of a visit from people of the description of your lordship's agents, losses are to be expected in course. However, my lord, until I can exactly say what things are missing, after an examination of my trunks, I will at present confine myself to claim a small portfolio, and some papers I have occasion for; they were laying upon my table, were carried off in my presence, and have not been returned to me. They consist of notes prepared for a fresh edition of the campaign of 1815, of remarks upon the violation of the capitulation of Paris, and of some letters. The concluding paragraph of Mr. Hobhouse's letter is curious; that gentleman says, lord Sidmouth has caused inquiry to be made as to your other complaint at your portfolio having been delivered to you open, and his lordship finds it to be utterly destitute of foundation.' I shall pass by, my lord, the indelicacy and offensiveness of these expressions of your secretary, and shall feel amply revenged by the shame a man must feel, who could forget himself so far as to use them. He doubtless conceived that, yielding to the desires expressed, and the menaces latterly employed to induce me to leave this city, and retire to Prague, to surrender myself as a prisoner, I should not be found at Hamburgh, that I could not answer him, that I could not establish the truth of my assertion—he is deceived. He speaks of an inquiry; but it strikes me that if an inquiry had been made to ascertain what occurred on the receipt of my portfolio, it were but just should have been acquainted with it, and one would have thought I should have been asked some questions upon the subject: I knew nothing at all of it.—No question whatever has been asked me In my letter of the 7th of December, my lord, I informed you that my portfolio, which, I took care to leave locked, having been sent to me open, I would not consent to receive it from the director of the English post, except in presence of the senator, Mr. Bartels, who has charge of the police of this city, and the paper annexed, signed by that magistrate,
[1366
proves that what I said was not utterly destitute of foundation. This attestation may also serve to enable your lordship to estimate the degree of credit to be given to reports made by your lordship's inquisitors. It is true, my lord, that I always have complained of the irregular and unlawful seizure of my papers and portfolio when I was sent out of England; but I never had an idea of complaining on account of the portfolio being sent to me with the lock forced. Whether it was sent to me open or shut, was equally the same. I should not have been the less persuaded that the reason of its having been taken from me was to ascertain what it contained. I am not singular, my lord, in this opinion. In short, what other motive could there have been for wishing to prevent me from locking it? For what other reason could they prevent my sealing it where and as I wished? For what other reason did they refuse to give it me during the four days I remained at Harwich? For what other reason did they keep it for eleven days after my departure? It was delivered to me with the lock open, and I think that proves nothing, unless it be this, viz. that the persons who opened it are more expert in removing seals than in shutting locks. Such, my lord, is at least my opinion, I may be deceived, but I think every sensible man will concur with me that it is not utterly destitute of foundation. I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed)
"Le General Baron GOURGAUD.
The following was the Certificate alluded to by the General:
"To General Baron Gourgaud at Hamburgh—Sir; In reply to the letter you did me the honour to write me yesterday, concerning a certificate to prove that your portfolio was returned to you open, and not otherwise, by the agent of the English post, Mr. Staecker, I hasten to acquaint you, that although I perfectly well remember that you came to my house at six on the evening of the 30th November last, accompanied by Mr. Staecker, and a servant carrying a portfolio; that you declared to me that the said portfolio, which you took most particular care in locking when it was taken away from you on the 14th November, having been sent back to you open, you would not receive it except in my presence; that after having examined the said portfolio, I sa-

1367
tisfied myself that its lock was open; and finally, that it was not until that fact had been thoroughly ascertained that you took back the portfolio: yet I am not able to give you a certificate upon it in my capacity of magistrate, since I only made the examination in the quality of a private individual. I cannot, however, as a private individual, refuse you this declaration—that it is incontestibly true that you would not receive your portfolio from the agent of the English post except in my presence; and that after I had examined its state and condition, I was convinced, as was also the said agent, that its lock was open, and not only not locked, but that the two seals appeared to be in pretty good order; that upon this subject you remarked, that such seals were very easy to remove and put on again without discovery, whilst treffle-locks like that upon your portfolio, once forced, were almost impossible to shut again without the key.
(Signed) "J. H. BARTELS."
These, said the hon. gentleman, were the facts of the petition, and it concluded with the same prayer that was contained in the letter to lord Sidmouth. He did not question the right of the ministers to send him out of the country, however he might deplore the manner in which that right had been exercised. He called for justice on those who had violated the spirit and letter of the Alien act, as if that act was not harsh and tyrannical enough. They had taken away the right of appeal which that act allowed; and they had sanctioned the commission of cruelty and indignity on a person whose rank in life, and whose unfortunate situation, might have with men of generous feelings, protected him against such treatment. Against these acts he petitioned, and into the truth of his petition the House should be anxious to inquire, both from a desire to afford justice to a suffering individual, and a wish to afford the ministers themselves the means of clearing themselves from a serious imputation.
The Petition was brought up. On the motion, that it be laid on the table.
Mr. H. Clive, after professing his readiness to take the responsibility of the alleged violations of the law on himself, said, that when the petitioner first came to this country, the ministers had certainly an idea of him different from that, which they were afterwards compelled to entertain. Into the reasons
[1368
which induced them to send him out of the country, it was not necessary for him to enter. It was sufficient to say, that they found cause to do so. He solemnly protested, that there was not the slightest idea, when that resolution was taken of treating general Gourgaud with unnecessary severity; and if he had submitted with the patience which was to be expected from a person subjected to a legal power, those grounds on which the present complaint was founded would not have existed. The officers who entered his room did not strike him with bludgeons, as they had no such things with them. They gave him time to dress, and when he had done that, he attempted by his strength to prevent them from removing him. A scuffle then certainly ensued, but in that scuffle the officers, feeling the delicacy of their situation, endeavoured to avoid doing him any injury, and in the end, had suffered much more than he. That he had appealed to the privy council, was false; and to show the inconsistency of the petition, he had stated in one part, that he was entirely friendless, and afterwards had mentioned, that dreading the proceeding which was afterwards adopted towards him, he had applied to a friend for advice, who had told him to petition the privy council. It was true, that the general pointed out to the officers a brace of pistols in a drawer; but this was not till he had seized another brace of pistols, which were loaded, and which were wrenched from him. After this, too, he seized a dagger, which was lying under some papers on his table, and began to attack one of the officers, but it was taken from him. He was put into a coach, while a friend of his attempted to prevent him from being removed. He was removed to a house near Vauxhall, for the sake of preserving the peace of the town, for a considerable crowd had been collected by the vociferations of the general. So cautious was the home department that this individual should not be treated illegally, that he (Mr. Clive), before the warrant was served, read over to the individual to whom it was entrusted, the clause in the Alien act, in which a right of appeal to the privy council was given; and the same clause was sent in writing to the agent at Harwich, that according to the words of the act, if any cause of appeal was alleged, the execution of the order might be suspended. Another cause for removing him in a coach was, that

1369
the general had cut his hand (by breaking the glass in order to cry out to the crowd in the street), a circumstance which had excited some commiseration, as it was supposed by many that it had been done in the struggle. If this individual had been so grievously ill-treated, how did it happen that so much time had been lost before the complaint was made to parliament, especially as a pamphlet was published long ago, threatening a parliamentary investigation? On the road to Harwich the petitioner pursued the same conduct, attempting to excite compassion by crying out murder, and consequently made j his journey much more unpleasant than was necessary. When he arrived at Harwich, according to his own desire, he saw the mayor, and told him that the warrant was illegal, because it was contrary to a permission he had received to reside in the country. The mayor correctly told him that the warrant was legal, and such as every alien in the country was bound to obey. While he was at Harwich he sent a friend with some directions respecting his property, which had been complied with. It was to be remembered that he stayed five days at Harwich, and that during this time any person from London might have gone to see him, or to have lodged the appeal. He also sent a letter to Mr. Forbin Janson which was delivered. The letter which he sent to lord Sidmouth for his portfolio was attended to: it was sent, through the agent at Harwich, to the agent at the post-office at Hamburgh, and through him delivered to general Gourgaud. The result of the inquiries which had been made concerning the delivery of this portfolio, he had before stated; he had only to read the letter from the agent at Harwich. The letter stated that the portfolio was forwarded as it was received. The hon. member also read a letter from the agent of the post at Hamburgh, stating that when general Gourgaud received the portfolio he broke the envelope, and declined to open the portfolio but in the presence of the director of police. On inspection, it was found unlocked, but two seals were on it. These were the facts of the case as far as they occurred to him.
Sir K. Wilsonsaid, the petition contained a serious charge on a subject on which that House alone was able to afford a remedy, for though some fractional parts of the grievances which the peti-
[1370
tioner had suffered, formed proper subjects for appeal to a legal tribunal, yet, by the law, under the operation of which the evils had arisen, the ministers were enabled to remove the person whom they had injured from the spot on which alone he could procure redress. There were other circumstances, indeed, in this petition, which were calculated to awaken the sympathy of any person of generous feelings. The petitioner, who complained of injury, was a stranger in this country, a man who had obtained all the distinctions which merit and pre-eminent courage are rewarded with, who had voluntarily involved himself in the ruin which had overtaken his master and benefactor. He should not inquire how the petitioner had drawn down on himself the displeasure of ministers. One cause which had been alluded to be was persuaded, inimical as he was to the principles on which the ministers proceeded, could not be the real cause. Because the petitioner had attempted to maintain, in a publication, the military honour of France, he could not think that the ministers would attempt to combat him by that ignoble weapon, a secretary of state's warrant, or attack him with police officers, because he attempted to prove, that neither his chief nor his countrymen had relinquished their swords ingloriously. The other cause alluded to was, that he had sent letters to the sovereigns of Europe in behalf of his master; and when he (sir R. W.) considered that a British officer had been dismissed from the service without a trial, for having spoken in behalf of the same individual, he could easily believe that this might be the real cause.—He could, indeed, pledge his life, that general Gourgaud had not been guilty of any traitorous correspondence, of any attempt to disturb the peace of Europe. As the petitioner with great delicacy had abstained from mentioning his (sir R. W's.) name, he thought it his duty plainly to state what he knew of the transactions alluded to. Some days after the publication of his work, general Gourgaud met him and told him, that in consequence of that publication, he understood the ministers intended to send him out of the country. He (sir R. W.) laughed at his apprehensions; but told him, that if such a course was really taken, he ought to appeal to the privy council, and that if there was no other cause than what he mentioned, the council would certainly annul the

1371
warrant. This he mentioned, to show that the petitioner was in possession of the knowledge of his power to appeal to the privy council, and there was the strongest presumption that he would exercise that power. At this time the petitioner asked him whether he knew a Dr. May? A person who called himself by this name had called on general Gourgaud, and represented himself as a military surgeon in the British service, and stated, that he had been quartered at the house of the mother of the general at Paris, and that he had received such attentions from her, that he was desirous of showing his gratitude to the family on every occasion. He then said, that if the general had any communications to make to his family, he (May) would take the charge of them; and to inspire confidence, he stated that he knew several persons, and among others him (sir R. Wilson). He told the petitioner that he knew no such person, and had no doubt that this Dr. May was either Mr. Oliver, or one of his brothers. A few days before the arrest, this May called on the general, and under some pretence, asked him to lend him 2l. The petitioner lent him 4 or 5l. He (sir R. W.), when he heard this, rebuked him for a piece of generosity which was not at all convenient, but congratulated him at the same time that May, instead of a spy, had turned out to be a swindler.—When general Gourgaud was arrested, the count Forbin Janson called on him (sir R. W.) and told him that he had, accompanied by captain Baker, called on Mr. Clive, and begged to be permitted to see the general. He had said, that he knew nothing of general Gourgaud, but that he was a brave officer and his countryman in misfortune; that he wished to offer to do him any service. He stated also that he was ready to communicate with the general under any restriction that might be wished. Mr. Clive stated that the general was out of town. Count Forbin Janson said that general Gourgaud could not be far off, as he was seen in town the day before, and that he was ready to follow him. Mr. Clive replied, that lord Sidmouth would not consent to allow him to see general Gourgaud; and told him, in short, that he could not be permitted to see him. Now, by the Alien act nothing of this kind was authorized; it was not directed that the person arrested should be surrounded by this inquisition-like mystery; that his effects should be
[1372
seized; that his friends should be shut out, and he left to the mercy of strangers. Count de Forbin Janson then related to him the circumstances of the arrest, as they were detailed in the petition, as to which he (sir R. W.) confessed that he was incredulous. He, however, accompanied the count to the house from whence the general had been taken. A servant who had been present during the transaction, related the particulars, and offered to vouch them upon oath. The evening before a person called, who turned out to be Mr. Capper. He asked whether the general was at home, and being answered in the negative, he desired the maid to tell the general that Dr. May would call on him the next morning. When it was recollected that this Dr. May was a swindler, and that his name was thus made use of by Mr. Capper, there could be little doubt that he was one of those dastardly assassins who go about seeking to destroy the victims, whether by truth or falsehood, into whose confidence they insinuate themselves. The same Mr. Capper called the next morning before the general was up; he went into the bed-room of the general, which was a back-parlour, and said something to him, at which the general did not seem alarmed. Mr. Capper then went to the front door, and rushed back, followed by several men, who seized the general, hurried him, undrest as he was, into the front room. They then brought his clothes; he, alarmed by the violence, lifted up a window, which they thrust down on his arm with such violence that he turned pale from pain. They then went through the passage with him to the coach, and the maid declared, that one of them struck him over the head with his cane (for it was true that they had no bludgeons, though a foreigner might easily mistake the term); they thrust him into the coach with such violence, that his head sounded against the opposite door loud enough to be heard through the house. His foot was hanging out of the door, which they closed violently, and the leg was so jammed that, from the force and the shriek, the witness thought it had been broken. It would be an insult to ask the House whether they could approve of such conduct. He was convinced even the secretary of state could not approve of it; but he was guilty in this—that instead of having the warrant executed in a decent way, he had sent seven or eight ruf-

1373
fians, as they proved themselves, to this defenceless individual. There was presumptive evidence that the general had appealed; he knew the right, and there could be no doubt that he had the desire to do so; and the positive evidence that he had been improperly treated was equally strong. As to the seizure of his papers, and the breaking open the portfolio, if it was authorized by lord Sidmouth, it was a high misdemeanor; if it was the act of Mr. Capper, it was nothing less than a felony. The motive could not be mistaken; the secretary had wished to peruse the papers, why else were they not delivered to him at Harwich. Indeed, he would defy the hon. under secretary to say that they had not been perused. As to the pistols, they had the arms of Napoleon on them, and perhaps the English, like the French police, made their insignia the warrant of confiscation. A police system was growing up in this country, which, if not checked, would become as odious as any of those under which the continental nations groaned. The honour of the country had been bought too dearly to be lost without regret, in such dastardly proceedings. He trusted, on these grounds, that the House would grant a committee to inquire, and he should be himself ready to conduct the investigation.
Lord Castlereaghadvised the gallant officer to be cautious how he pledged himself as to the veracity of a person with whom he could have had so recent an acquaintance. As to the battle of Waterloo, of which the general had been the historian, it might be left to speak for itself, but of another encounter he imagined the general would be found not a very faithful historian. It was in itself highly improbable, as Mr. Capper went provided with instructions to attend to the request of the general as to the appeal, and even to facilitate it, that he should have committed unprovoked violence. If he was not misinformed, the general laid hold of a brace of pistols, loaded, which he presented; and if the two officers (for there were but two who followed Mr. Capper) had not seized them, the matter might have been brought to a more speedy conclusion. After this, he took up a dagger, but fortunately got the wrong end of it; in the division of it, consequently, the scabbard remained with the general, and the officer had the weapon. If the division had been reversed, perhaps the general might have been tempted to
[1374
make more use of it than the officer did When neither the brace of pistols nor the dagger availed him, he was permitted to seal his papers; but he again resorted to violence, and finding his efforts ineffectual within the house, attempted to appeal to the populace without; he broke the windows, and called out in such a manner, that the situation of the officers became critical, and they were obliged to remove him. One of the king's officers was actually knocked down by one of the populace. When he was carried to Harwich, he manifested the same disposition, and on his way beat or struck one of the officers. He mentioned these things to show that the word of this historian was not implicitly to be trusted to.
Mr. F. Douglasthought his hon. friend had made out a case which called urgently for inquiry. He knew it was customary for gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, to meet statements of abuses by reflections on the characters of those persons on whose veracity these statements rested. No doubt the name of general Gourgaud, and the remembrance of his political connexions, were apt to excite prejudices in some persons minds; and perhaps he himself was not altogether free from those prejudices. But still a breach of the law of the land—a breach of that principle which regulated our intercourse with foreign nations, as well as of the principle which protected our internal property—the House were bound to watch with peculiar jealousy. The question respecting general Gourgaud divided itself into two branches. The first was, his having neglected to demand that he should be carried before the privy-council. They must all recollect, in the debate on the Alien bill, how much stress was laid by the gentlemen opposite, on that part of it which provided that the alien should have an appeal to the privy council; but how did the hon. gentleman meet this point? He had said, that general Gourgaud did not require to be brought before the privy council, but before a magistrate. Good God! were laws to be eluded on such quibbles? It was the duty of the officer to inform general Gourgaud what course he should pursue. This treatment was both ungenerous and unjust. He would appeal to those who, like himself, had occasionally found themselves friendless strangers in a foreign country, ignorant of the laws of that country and the regulations applicable to

1375
foreigners, how they would have judged of similar conduct towards themselves? He should say a few words on the other branch of this question—the seizure of the general's property. If his papers were not to be examined when brought before the privy council, why had they been taken away at all? It was said, formerly, that they had been taken away for the purpose of security; but did not the gentlemen know that general Gourgaud had friends in this country, who could have taken care of them? It never could be the duty of that House to consider assertions made against a man, a sufficient reason for not taking his case into inquiry. The assertions of the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Clive) certainly weighed more with him than the assertions of general Gourgaud, but for that very reason he was for an inquiry. He did not accuse the hon. gentleman of any breach of the law, much less of any voluntary injustice towards this man; but there might be seen in this case one of the bad effects arising from the possession of uncontrolled power. In persons possessed of arbitrary power there was a natural and inherent proneness to violence and brutality.
Mr. Bathursturged the same facts which had been mentioned by Mr. Clive and lord Castlereagh, and contended that there was quite enough doubt thrown on the character of the petitioner to induce the House to hesitate ere they trusted to his accuracy.
Mr. Bennetanimadverted upon the observation of the noble lord and the hon. gentleman on the other side, that the allegation of general Gourgaud was contradicted by that of the officer by whom he was arrested; and that the question was, to which would the House attach credit? Now for his part he would always be disposed to decide rather in favour of the testimony of the oppressed than of that of the oppressor, because the contradiction of the latter was naturally to be looked for as the consequence of the complaint of the former, especially when an appeal was made to any tribunal not likely to grant impunity to acknowledged guilt. But it was not the fact that in this case the House had nothing but the assertion of the petitioner and the contradiction of the officer; for it appeared, that the allegation of general Gourgaud, as to the ill treatment he experienced upon his arrest, was corro-
[1376
borated by two servants belonging to the house in which the general lodged Surely, then, such corroboration was calculated to give additional weight to the complaints of the petitioner! But as to the conduct of general Gourgaud upon the road to Harwich, how could it be with any degree of candour made matter of complaint against that officer, that he himself, when dragged in such a manner along the road, ventured to exclaim against those by whom he was so harshly treated? Would gentlemen desire that in such a case the sufferer should be totally silent, or that he should be actually gagged? It was preposterous to suppose that the general could have contemplated any thing like a rescue upon his route to Harwich, for the number of officers by whom he was accompanied, with other circumstances, must have convinced any man with the mind of the petitioner, that such a scheme must have been quite chimerical. But with respect to the conduct of the officers towards the portfolio of the petitioner, that conduct was not attempted to be denied, and he now asked any one enabled to answer, on the part of the home department, whether the statement of the petitioner upon this-point was or was not correct? If it were correct, and that the petitioner's portfolio was broken or opened by a key, he had no hesitation in affirming, that the person who had so broken or opened it was guilty of an act of felony. Yet such an act was not denied, and there was, therefore, but too much reason to apprehend that the portfolio was actually opened, and the papers it contained taken out and read.
Mr. Sinclairwas fully persuaded, that if any inquiry should take place, it would appear, that the ill usage complained of by general Gourgaud, was occasioned by provocation and resistance on his part. It was inconsistent with the national character to suppose that any Englishman, and especially a person of acknowledged humanity and reputation, would use violence towards a prisoner in the general's situation without adequate cause or necessity. He had chiefly risen to state his entire dissent from the opinions expressed by the hon. mover and others upon the subject of the Alien act; he thought that enactment highly salutary and expedient. It was consistent with the best interests of the country that a power should be vested in the executive government of

1377
removing incendiaries from the kingdom, who, after having employed their whole lives in endeavouring to overturn the establishments, and perpetuate the misery of other countries, came here for the purpose of persisting in the execution of their mischievous designs. It was far from being his wish that Great Britain should be compelled to foster serpents in her besom, who, after having been nurtured by the genial warmth of English hospitality and benevolence, would not scruple to embrace the earliest opportunity to sting their benefactress through the heart. He hoped that a discretionary power would continue to be entrusted to his majesty's ministers, in whom he had sufficient confidence to believe that they would never wantonly abuse it.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, it was quite absurd to suppose that cruelty was impossible in a country in which such an execrable measure as the Alien act was passed into a law; for that act was the fruit and parent of cruelty, and men acting under it must necessarily be cruel. The conduct therefore which general Gourgaud complained of, was naturally to be expected from such a law. But yet it would be disgraceful to that House not to inquire into the complaints of the petitioner. These complaints ought indeed to be promptly investigated, and yet the noble lord had not intimated his intention to accede to the desire for taking his petition into consideration. But it was due to the honour and dignity of the country to have such a transaction investigated, especially as the main allegations of the petitioner were not even denied. The noble lord and the right hon. gentleman had dwelt particularly upon the irregularity and violence of general Gourgaud upon the road to Harwich. But in what did this irregularity and violence consist? Why, in a mere complaint of the ill-treatment which the general had received, and for such complaint one of the officers gave him a blow upon the head with a bludgeon. But it was insinuated that general Gourgaud sought to procure a rescue by his conduct upon the road. The idea however was quite absurd, especially as the general could not speak English. But the facts of this case, outrageous as they were, sunk into insignificance compared to the principle of the law upon which the proceeding was grounded. According to that law, it was pretended that the petitioner bad a right
[1378
of appeal to the privy council; and the under secretary had mentioned, that a copy of the clause conferring this right was given to Mr. Capper, with a view to be communicated to general Gourgaud? But what was done with this clause? Why that which, in common fairness, should have been laid before the general in London, he was not allowed to see until he arrived at Harwich, where the communication was nugatory and illusive. In common justice it was the duty of the House to allow him an opportunity of proving the truth of his complaints, or to allow those against whom his complaints were preferred, the opportunity of disproving them. Formerly it was the universal understanding, that when any foreigner set his foot upon British land he became a free man, and entitled to the protection of our laws, but since the enactment of the Alien act, the foreigner who sought an asylum in England from any arbitrary government, was condemned to additional persecution—for, by this infamous act, England became a party to the system of persecution which characterized some of the governments of the continent. But to return to the case of the petitioner, he was authorized to state that the pamphlet alluded to on the other side [the letter to earl Grey, lately published by Ridgway, Piccadilly], was not the production of general Gourgaud: therefore any animadversions to which this pamphlet might be liable, could not be applied to that officer. The hon. gentleman concluded with the expression of a hope that the hon. gentleman, who had so laudably introduced this subject to the notice of the House, would follow it up with the proposition of some measure calculated to avenge the injury of a distinguished foreigner, and to vindicate the character of this great nation.
Sir G. Cockburnobserved, that from what had been so emphatically urged as to the high character for fidelity of general Gourgaud, he thought it right to state something which he happened to know of that officer at St. Helena, where the general stated to him, that he had great reason to complain of that scoundrel grand marshal (Bertrand); for so these persons were in the habit of speaking of each other. The general mentioned his ground of complaint. He said, that he had served in the army under Buonaparte in Russia, where he had so distinguished himself as to attract the favour of Napoleon; but

1379
that when Napoleon abdicated, be felt himself released from his allegiance, and joined the army of the king. In that army he was favoured with the patronage of the duke de Berri, through whom he obtained the cross of St. Louis; but yet that when Napoleon returned from Elba, he immediately offered him his services, in consequence of which, Napoleon appointed him to a high command in the ordnance. On which he (Gourgaud) called upon Bertrand to thank him, conceiving the appointment to be owing to that marshal's recommendation. The marshal, however, promptly undeceived him, observing, that he had no notion of recommending the appointment of such girouettes. Hence Gourgaud complained of Bertrand, and upon his (sir G. C.'s) asking Gourgaud wherefore he had come to St. Helena, Gourgaud replied, "from fidelity to his sovereign." He hoped that no one would suppose him likely to condemn any officer for fidelity, but what degree of character for fidelity really belonged to general Gourgaud, the House could judge from the circumstances which be had stated. As to the case alluded to on the other side, he did not exactly comprehend the allusion; but he could assure the gallant officer that no such a case had happened with regard to any officer in the navy.
Mr. Lambton, in reply, maintained, that however it might have been lawful to arrest general Gourgaud, there was no law whatever to authorize the seizure of his papers. As to the character of the general, it was rather strange, that if that character were so exceptionable as some gentlemen would now insinuate, he should have been admitted to an acquaintance with a minister of the Crown, or how came he to dine with lord Bathurst? With regard to the terms in which the allegation of Mr. Capper was spoken of, he begged that in order to appreciate the character of that person, gentlemen would take the trouble of reading what referred to him in the report of the police committee of 1816. It would be there seen that this Mr. Benjamin Capper found his way into a gaming-house, accompanied by other police officers; that he there appeared in uniform with a drawn sword, and actually took away all the money on the table, for none of which he accounted. This appeared from the evidence of Mr. Nares, the magistrate, and after such evidence, he apprehended that no one
[1380
would be found to put the credit of Capper in competition with that of gen. Gourgaud, or of any other individual entitled to the least consideration. He therefore called upon the noble lord, for the honour of his own government, to institute an inquiry into the merits of this petition, and not allow himself to be influenced by any desire to screen such a person as Capper.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

BANKRUPT LAWS AMENDMENTBILL.
Mr. J. Smith, in rising to move the second reading of this bill, said, that in calling the attention of the House to the principal points of the bill, it would be necessary to allude to the steps which had been taken upon the same subject in the two last sessions of the last parliament. There were at that time petitions presented from various parts of the country, complaining of the grievances which existed under the bankrupt laws as they then stood. These petitions were referred to a committee, which was appointed in 1817. From the report of that committee, who had taken the greatest pains to make themselves acquainted with the subject, very valuable information had been derived. The committee of 1818 had added very materially to this information by their labours, and the result of both having gained publicity, had attracted great attention in every part of the country. The bill which he now held in his hand was not the same as the measure which had been proposed on a former occasion. It adopted, it was true, many of the improvements which were then suggested; but there were others added, calculated to obviate many grievances which were not fully entered into at that time. The principal grievances arising from the bankrupt laws, as they now stood, were kept in view, and would be met by what he thought appropriate enactments in the bill. The first great object would be to take such a proper care of the bankrupt's property, as to ensure the creditors, as well as the bankrupt himself, against that loss which they now so frequently sustained from the manner of proving debts. Another object would be to prevent the loss of many debts which it was found difficult to prove under the present system. A great object would also be, to do away the facility with which fraudulent bankrupts could at present obtain their certificates, to alter the law which inflicted

1381
the punishment of death in many instances of fraud under these acts, and to ensure an adequate allowance to the bankrupt himself on the dividend. The want of such regulations had been complained of in several petitions, and were proved before the committee in 1817. At that time the committee had called before them several Irish gentlemen, engaged in very extensive commercial dealings in the sister country. The examination of these occupied the committee eight or ten days; and in the end, it appeared to them, that it would be very difficult to introduce any measure which would be applicable in the same manner in both countries. This would, if it could be effected, be most desirable; but from the difference of the laws and practice in the two countries, it would be almost impossible to introduce into one bill, the regulations which, might be necessary for both. However, he was not without the hope that a bill applicable to the exigencies of the bankrupt laws in Ireland would be speedily introduced, as a right hon. friend of his had promised, that if this bill was passed, he would give his assistance in framing one which might remedy the evils experienced from those laws in Ireland. After the examination of the gentlemen alluded to, the committee of 1817 proceeded to examine several respectable merchants and traders of the metropolis, and also several eminent solicitors, a great part of whose business was connected with bankrupt commissions; and from all they received the concurring opinions, that the present state of the bankrupt laws was wholly inefficient to their object. In the next year the committee had the testimony of some of the most experienced of the commissioners, Mr. Montague, Mr. Cullen, and some others, who all agreed that the laws were totally inapplicable. Mr. Cullen, in addition to his direct concurrence in this opinion, stated, that not only the laws were inefficient, but also the entire constitution of the commissioners themselves.—After thus stating generally the acknowledged defects of the laws as they now stood, and an outline of the remedies which they called for, he begged the attention of the House while he offered a few observations upon some points in detail. The first enactment went to point out what; was the description of persons who might become subject to the bankrupt laws. Upon this point there had
[1382
existed heretofore a great deal of difficulty and obscurity. In fact, it was not with any accuracy defined, who might, or might not, be declared bankrupts. It was known that many persons had been so declared, had commissions issued against them, and received certificates, who had never exercised any trade, or who only did one act of bankruptcy, and that often by accident. The story of the country gentleman against whom a commission of bankruptcy was issued was well known; but as it served strongly to illustrate his argument, he should repeat it. This gentleman kept a pack of fox hounds, and, as food for them, was in the habit of buying dead horses, and selling their skins; becoming embarrassed, a commission was issued against him, and it was held from that, that he was a trader within the meaning of the act, though his only act of trade was the buying the bodies of a few dead horses, and selling their skins. There were many other cases equally strong, and many instances where persons absolutely exercising trades (for instance, the trade of a dyer), were declared not to be subject to the bankrupt laws. To remedy this, he would define, as nearly as possible, all who were subject to, and all who should be exempt from, the operation of those laws. Among the exceptions he would class artisans, handicraftsmen, artists, sculptors, painters, schoolmasters, attornies and solicitors, scriveners, farmers, in respect of farming-stock of any description, butlers or servants to the inns of court, receivers or collectors of king's taxes; and, in general, all persons whose subsistence was wholly or principally dependent Upon manual, or mental labour, and whose usual dealings did not require or occasion credit by means of bills of exchange. As to some of these, as well as to others mentioned in that part of the bill which enumerated those who were subject to the bankrupt laws, there might, he had no doubt, exist a difference of opinion. The next enactment to which he wished to call the attention of the House was a new one, and, in his opinion, much called for by the defects in the present system. It declared, that any person coming under the description of those who were liable to the bankrupt laws, who after the passing of the present act, should, for seven successive days, stop payment, not being disabled through severe or sudden illness from attending to business, or who during

1383
that time generally refused or were unable to pay his or her debts, or who during thirty successive days should be absent from his usual place of residence or counting-house, or warehouse, without having made provision for his bills, notes, or any Other demands at the time of their becoming due; or who, having any writs of Action for debt issued against him, and notice of such left at his usual dwelling place, and who in nine days after such notice, (seven days being allowed to elapse between each notice) should not put in sufficient bail for such action; or who being arrested for a debt, should remain in prison for 14 days or more, for such or any other debt; such person should be liable to be declared, by any such act or acts, to have committed an act of bankruptcy, and be liable to have a commission issued against him, provided such commission be issued within twelve calendar months after any such act or acts. It was necessary that such guards should be placed upon the issuing of a commission; for the refusal in many cases to have a commission issued, was one of the greatest sources of fraud. Indeed, in 99 cases out of 100, the issuing of a commission was the result of a concert between the friends or creditors of the bankrupt. This was not the effect of fraud; the object was, to prevent the bankrupt from wasting the property of himself and the creditors until it would be too late. It frequently happened, that when a commission was so issued, the assignees met, and came to a division of the property, which was beneficial for all parties; but then, if the creditor was dishonest, and wished to defraud the whole of them, he might turn round and say, that the commission was illegal, that it was the result of a previous concert, and that he would apply to have it set aside. It frequently happened, that such proof lay in his power; and the consequence was, the commission was set aside, and the assignees might be made to pay back the whole of the money which he might have so collected. The result of this was, that of late years very few respectable persons could be got to act as assignees. In order to remedy this, he would have a clause, by which assignees should be protected from such abuses as he had alluded to. One thing which he conceived the House ought not to lose sight of was, the giving additional power to the commissioners. As at present constituted, they had scarcely sufficient power to regulate and
[1384
keep order in their own court. It was disgraceful to witness such scenes of tumult and confusion as were of daily occurrence in those courts, where property to so large an amount was concerned. He begged to be understood as not intending to cast any imputation upon the conduct of the commissioners. Nothing was farther from his intention, and they themselves knew it. They were aware of the evils to which he alluded, and with a heavy responsibility, they stood as it were with their hands tied up. One additional power which he wished they should have, would be that of expunging the proof a debt, if they should afterwards see occasion. At present a debt, when once proved, could not be expunged, though it should be found that it was most erroneous, except by application to the chancellor, and that was attended with so much expense, that the creditors seldom found they would gain any thing, even if they should succeed. He would have a clause, giving the power to the commissioners to expunge a debt whenever they should see occasion, leaving it still open to any party objecting to appeal. He would also give them the power of enforcing the attendance of witnesses. He knew there was a great difference of opinion on the subject of adding to the power of the commissioners in town. He conceived that such an addition should be made, but he would by no means add to the power of the commissioners in the country. The country commissioners were, he might almost say, self-elected. The person issuing the commissions had only to give instructions to his solicitor, and he appointed any five persons he pleased, they being solicitors. It often happened, in consequence, that the immediate friends and connexions of the party were made commissioners. Sometimes the relatives or partners. He had heard of one instance of three partners, two of whom were made commissioners, and the third, assignee to the same commission. So fully sensible was the late chancellor Loughborough, of the serious evils and great abuses which were committed through this system, that he struck out several lists of commissioners in several parts of the country, who atone had the power to hear and determine upon bankrupt commissions. The practice was not followed up by the present lord chancellor, nor even were the vacancies in the two lists which still remained. The reason

1385
assigned for his lordship's non-interference was, a motive of delicacy, as such a proceeding would be giving to the solicitors in the country an advantage over their brethren in town. He (Mr. Smith) confessed he could not see how that reason ought to operate, or why any greater difficulty should exist in appointing commissioners in Yorkshire than in London. Indeed, so great was the evil arising from the manner in which many of those country commissions were at present worked, that it seldom happened that a shilling was received by the assignees.—One other point which he wished to remark was a new one: it was new, and one to which, though there were many objections, he confessed he was quite partial. In the second meeting of the commissioners, as the practice at present stood, the assignees were appointed, but it was impossible for the assignee, let him be ever so well inclined, to give his constant attendance; so numerous were the meetings, and so various the delays incidental to those commissions. The assignees, it was known, acted gratuitously; it was not to be expected, therefore, that they would pay that very diligent attention where they had no very great interest. The consequence was, that though he had known many who at the commencement of the business were very diligent, yet he found, that before it was half concluded, they got tired, and left the whole matter to be managed by the solicitor or his agents. Chance made him acquainted with the practice of the Scotch, in their working commissions; and he could not avoid remarking, that in this, as well as in many other instances, our northern neighbours had the advantage of us in good sound sense. In Scotland, it was the practice to appoint an agent to the commission, who kept the accounts of the bankrupt, examined his books, collected his debts, and did many other acts which was the duty of the assignees among them, but a duty, from the neglect of which the bankrupt's estate too frequently suffered. He would propose, that such an agent should be appointed to each commission, with duties nearly similar. With regard to that part of the law which inflicted capital punishment upon any bankrupt who concealed his property from his creditors, he would merely refer to the evidence which had been given in the last session by his lamented friend, sir Samuel Romilly, to show that this extraordinary rigour defeated the purpose for which it
[1386
was intended, by preventing any prosecutions being instituted at all. There was also another point of great importance, to which he must call the attention of the House. He intended to give the commissioners of bankrupt authority to inquire into the conduct of the bankrupt previous to his bankruptcy. Under the present enactments, the commissioners had not the power to refuse their signature to the commission, however profligate and extravagant the bankrupt might have been, if he has conformed himself to the regulations of the law; neither had the lord chancellor himself any right to object to the certificate, if it was signed by a regular proportion of creditors. He recollected an instance in which a bankrupt, on his examination, had been asked to explain in what manner he had expended the large sum of 23,000 l. in seventeen months. The man answered very honestly, that he had expended it in wanton extravagance, having kept a mistress at Hampstead, and a large establishment both in town and country. The creditors, though highly exasperated by this statement, had notwithstanding signed his certificate; and the individual, if he was rightly informed, was now carrying on business with the greatest success. The clause which he had inserted into his new act was to punish such unwarrantable extravagance, by entitling the commissioners to inquire into the past life of the bankrupt, and by empowering them to grant or to withhold his certificate, as might to them seem just and proper. He was very anxious that this clause should pass into law, because it was of the very highest importance to the interests of the community. He was also inclined to propose a clause—which, though proposed by a man whose memory no man could help revering, and which no man revered more than he himself did, had been lost in another quarter—that it should be requisite that four-fifths, and not three-fifths only of the creditors should sign the certificate. He could wish also to say something on the proceedings at Guildhall, and the scenes of perjury which so frequently occurred there, It had been proved by the evidence of Mr. Montague and Mr. Courtenay, that perjury was there reduced to such a system, as no honest man could think of without shuddering. Mr. Montague had said, that on those days when numerous meetings of creditors were expected, individuals plied at the hall-

1387
door to be hired to perjure themselves in the proof of fictitious debts; and that these individuals were afterwards employed to sign the bankrupt's certificate, just as if they had been bonâ fide creditors. This system was mentioned by other witnesses, and a respectable solicitor had even gone so far as to assert, that there was a regular house in Doctors' Commons, where men might at any hour be met ready to prove debts for a certain per centage. Mr. Montague on one occasion had been employed to object to the claim of a man who had come forward to prove it under very suspicious circumstances—he was unsuccessful in his opposition, and the debt was in consequence established. Mr. Montague thought no more of the man after he had left the commissioners, until he met him on the afternoon of the same day, in his road to his house in Bedford-square, selling old cloaths, and exercising an employment, which though mean, was far more respectable than the trade which be had been pursuing in the morning. He thought that there was no occasion to add any further observations to such a disclosure—There was another point, to which he anticipated much opposition, but which was likely to be attended with great advantages—he meant the granting of an allowance to bankrupts on the dividends which they paid over to their creditors. At present no allowance was granted to them, unless the dividend amounted to a certain value. This he conceived to be improper; and should therefore propose, that when a bankrupt bad not dealt in accommodation paper, and had not been guilty of any fraudulent conduct, he should receive a considerable per centage on his dividend. Now, when it was considered that a bankrupt gave up all his property, and was liable to death, if he concealed property of more than 20 l. value, it was quite evident that he might be reduced to the greatest possible distress, if some such relief were not administered to him. Besides, in case of that individual lending his assistance to his assignees to collect the debts due to his estate, it was not common humanity and true policy to allow him to share in the sums so obtained for the creditors. It was maintained in former times, but he was glad to see that the idea, was now abandoned, that the only way to prevent crime was to enact excessive punishment; he thought a more efficient way to prevent it would be found
[1388
in any plan that should give men an interest not to commit it; inasmuch as there were few who did not behave well, when it was made their interest to do so. He acknowledged, that when a bankrupt was not allowed to retain any property, the temptation to conceal some portion of it; was almost irresistible; and he therefore wished to diminish this temptation, by giving them a certain allowance, which would make them contemplate bankruptcy with very different feelings to those with which it was at present contemplated. A man in such a situation would then consider "what is it my interest to do?" and his reason would answer, "to behave like an honest man." There was another subject which he wished to impress on the notice of the House, that protection ought to be given to the commissioners in the discharge of their public duties—a protection which recent events had proved to be essentially necessary; and also to the messengers, who at present, contrary to all rule and principle, were completely, under the control of the solicitors. In the bill which had been prepared last year, there was a clause proposing that a certain fixed salary should be given to the commissioners. From the observations which had been made to him since that time, he had discovered that all parties objected to it, and he had therefore withdrawn, it. The hon. member then moved the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Abercrombyobserved, that though there were no questions more important than those which proposed alterations in the existing law, there were none into which the House entered with greater reluctance, or which it was more difficult to carry in the affirmative, owing to the small but compact body which regularly opposed them. As his hon. friend had devoted hours, days, and months to this subject, as he had given up to it the whole of his time, which might have been applied to more profitable speculations, be trusted the House would pay the utmost attention to the various clauses and enactments of his bill. As he had no objection, to the greater part of them, he should reserve the observations which he had to make upon them, until the House went into a committee. He was, however, inclined to make a suggestion to his hon. friend, without which he was, perfectly convinced that the bill could not possibly pass. He would, separate it into two bills, and would embody in the first all that was matter of

1389
regulation in the practice; and in the second all that was matter of improvement in the existing law. It was his opinion, that if his hon. friend carried the first of these bills, he would carry all that he ought; for, paradoxical as it might appear, the bill seemed to him to go too far, and not to go far enough. It went too far in imposing new duties on the commissioners; but it did not go far enough, because it was impossible to render the bankrupt law such as it ought to be, unless there was a total and radical change in those who have to administer it. He made this Statement in the spirit of candour, and not with a view of impugning the conduct of the commissioners, of whom he himself formed a part. On the contrary, he felt assured that those gentlemen discharged their duties in the most creditable manner it was possible that they could be discharged, under the circumstances in which they were placed. He thought, however, that fresh duties ought not to be imposed upon them, because the businesses in which they were already involved, were of a nature sufficiently complicated. The law could never be properly administered until the commissioners devoted their whole time to the administration of it; because it was too much to expect of any men, that they should neglect their own private clients, in order to attend a commission of bankruptcy, from which they derived inferior emoluments. To add, therefore, fresh duties to those which the commissioners already had to perform, would be to impose upon them duties which would clog the machine much more than it was clogged under the present system. The learned gentleman then animadverted on a clause proposed to the House in the bill then before it, allowing a man to make himself a voluntary bankrupt, and said that it would open a door to a species of fraud which would be attended with the greatest inconveniences. He agreed with his hon. friend upon the propriety of repeating that part of the bankrupt law which inflicted capital punishment, and expressed a hope that, whatever the fate of the bill itself might be, the sanguinary enactments of the present system might at least be obliterated from the statute book.
Sir J. Newportbore testimony to the unwearied assiduity of the hon. gentleman who had prepared this bill. Whatever benefit might arise from it, the country would be indebted for it to his hon. friend.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanhad some objections to different clauses in the bill, but agreed with the principle of it as far as it went.
The bill was then read a second time.

BARNSTAPLE ELECTION.
Lord Clive Lord Clive moved, that the report of the committee on the Barnstaple Election to be taken into further consideration. The noble lord read the two special resolutions to which the committee, of which he sat as chairman, had come. (See p. 933). He said, that the testimony of the witnesses examined before the committee completely justified these resolutions. Of the number of resident voters, which did not much exceed 300, 66 had received bribes from sir M. M. Lopes, who had expended 3,000 l. at the last election, in bribery and treating, through a banker, Mr. J. Gribble. The out voters, who amounted to about 240, received 20 l. a-piece; the resident electors 5l. Mr. Gribble had stated, that the London voters in sir M. Lopes's interest claimed and received 2l. more a-piece, because Mr. Ommaney's said they had been so paid. The noble lord submitted, after detailing these and other facts, that the committee were justified in the opinion they offered to the House. The number of voters was considerable. The modes of acquiring the freedom of the borough were three—birth, servitude, or creation. The committee were anxious to increase the number of freemen, that such disgraceful proceedings as had lately taken place should not again occur. The noble lord expressed a wish that some member, more able and better acquainted with the subject than himself, would originate some measure, in consequence of the resolutions of the committee, should those resolutions be agreed to by the House.
Sir J. Newportexpressed a hope that the noble lord would follow up the proceedings already instituted, with such ulterior measure as might be best calculated to support the dignity of the House-When bribery had been proved to have existed in Barnstaple to such a gross extent—when it was shown that the trade of manufacturing members of parliament had been carried on there with such unblushing effrontery—it was absolutely necessary that the House should punish the offence, and show that it was laudably anxious at the same time to secure its own dignity and the welfare of the community.
Lord Comptonsaid, that this treasure Could not be in better hands than in those of his noble friend, and in the name of the committee, added, that all the members of it would be extremely willing to afford him every assistance.
Mr. Bennetconcurred in the sentiments expressed by the noble lord, and hoped the measure would be followed up to the utmost.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, it was a long cherished principle of his mind that some reform was necessary in the constitution of that House, but he also felt that unless some reform were effected, as well in the electors as in the elected, no effective good could be attained. He hoped measures Such as were now recommended, would have the effect of introducing some more extensive reform, but although he might not obtain all he desired, he was happy to take whatever he could get.
Mr. Blakethought, that though this right bad been abused by the electors, the borough ought not therefore to be disfranchised.
Mr. W. Smithexplained his ideas of parliamentary reform, which, he said had never extended to the absurd doctrines of universal suffrage and annual parliaments.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that the practice of parliament was not to disfranchise the borough, but to increase the number of voters from the adjacent hundreds. In the present case, the corruption was made out so clearly, that the noble lord would probably see the propriety of introducing a bill with a view to prevent the repetition of such disgraceful scenes. He was sure that every member would gladly lend his assistance towards forwarding such a measure.
Mr. Alderman Heygateadmitted, that corruption had been proved to a great extent in Barnstaple, and hoped it might be punished with the utmost severity; but the House should pause, and consider whether they might not strengthen the interests of one part of the community at the expense of the rest. Should boroughs be deprived of their exclusive representation, and the right of election be thrown open to the hundred, the interests of the trading and Commercial parts of the community might be sacrificed to those of agriculture.
Mr. Gordonsaid tbat he would support the principle of including the hundred,
[1392
for the very reason that the worthy alderman opposed it, namely, that it would give a preponderance to the landed interests. He thought the best way of putting an end to the foolish clamour raised out of doors, about annual parliaments and universal suffrage was, to reform each corrupt borough, as its corruption became known, in the same manner as it was proposed to reform that of Barnstaple. The best answer to these senseless and noisy demagogues was, for the House to show that it was always ready to do its duty when called upon.
The first Resolution was agreed to; and on the second being read,
Lord Clivesaid, he did not wish to press himself forward on a task of this nature; yet as it seemed to be the desire of the House that he should proceed, he was willing to obey. His lordship concluded with moving for leave to bring in a bill to prevent bribery and corruption the election of members to serve in parliament for the borough of Barnstaple.
Mr. Wynnrecommended the adoption of a resolution as a foundation for the bill to be introduced, and the following resolution was agreed to: "That it appears to the House that a general system of corruption was practised at the last election for the borough of Barnstaple." Leave was then given to bring in the bill, and it was ordered, that the Speaker do not issue his warrant for making out a new writ for the borough of Barnstaple until the 30th of April. Mr. Wynn thought that the House, having thus ascertained the existence of the crime, ought to proceed to the punishment of the delinquent. It was therefore, on his motion, ordered, "That the Attorney-general be directed to prosecute sir Manasseh Masseh Lopes fop Bribery at the last Election for Barnstaple."